- From: Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:53:03 +0200
- To: werner.donne@re.be
- CC: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
- Message-ID: <447C15FF.5080906@greenbytes.de>
Hi Werner, since the current wording of section 3.13 does not do any harm and there is no need to mention explicitly the possibility of rejecting a DELETE request on an activity resource, I do not think that this is really an issue. Again, a server may fail any request for whatever reason. Regards, Manfred Werner Donné wrote: > Hi Manfred, > > Perhaps the pre-condition in section 3.13 could be replaced with a > final paragraph in the section saying that the operation may be > rejected. It is also formulated like that in other areas of the > specification, such as when the update of some property may be > rejected. Such a paragraph would in place for section 13.8 too. > > Regards, > > Werner. > > Manfred Baedke wrote: > >> Hi Werner, >> >> being a MAY requirement, the precondition definition in section 3.13 is >> nothing really normative. Maybe its only me, but I find the concept of a >> precondition containing only MAY requirements rather strange. >> >> Regards, >> Manfred >> >> Werner Donné wrote: >> >>> Hi Manfred, >>> >>> Shouldn't then a pre-condition be added in section 13.8 of RFC 3253, >>> analogous to the one in section 3.13? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Werner. >>> >>> Manfred Baedke wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Werner, >>>> >>>> This is of course allowed, IMHO. More generally, a server is allowed to >>>> reject the deletion of any resource for whatever reason. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Manfred >>>> >>>> Werner Donné wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> When an activity is deleted all references to it should be removed. >>>>> Versions that have the activity in their activity-set, for example, >>>>> should have their activity-set updated. Versions, which were created >>>>> on a branch represented by the activity, all of the sudden are not >>>>> on that branch anymore and in an implicit way. This seems rather >>>>> strange and dangerous. Would it be allowed to reject the deletion >>>>> of the activity in this case? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Werner. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 09:53:19 UTC